<)*2d Congress 1 
"M Session J 


SENATK 


Document 
No. 302 


INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM, AND RECALL 










— 


ARTICLE 


BY 


HON. JONATHAN BOURNE, Jr 


UNITED STATES SENATOR 


ON 


INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM, AND RECALL 
PUBLISHED IN THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY 
OF JANUARY, 1912 




PRESENTED BY MR. BROWN 
February 12, 1912.—Ordered to be printed 


WASHINGTON 

1912 










fi 

V' * w 


r.i 


ivl? 


■*- 

i. 



INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM, AND RECALL. 


Intelligent and profitable discussion of practical problems of social 
or governmental improvement must include full recognition and due 
consideration of the forces controlling human action. Society and 
government are purely organizations of human beings, and their limi¬ 
tations and possibilities are measured by the average of individual de¬ 
velopment. The desideratum is to give the greatest freedom to bene¬ 
ficial influences, and to restrain all tendencies toward evil influences. 
Successful and permanent government must rest primarily on recog¬ 
nition of the rights of men and the absolute sovereignty of the people. 
Upon these principles is built the superstructure of our Republic. 
Their maintenance and perpetuation measure the life of the Republic. 
These policies, therefore, stand for the rights and liberties of the 
people, and for the power and majesty of the Government as against 
the enemies of both. 

Delegated government exists where the public servant owes his 
nomination and election to known individuals, political bosses, caucus, 
convention, and legislative managers, or campaign contributors, thus 
establishing personal obligations and accountability, resulting in 
service for selfish interests. Popular government exists where the 
public servant is under obligation to and solely accountable to the 
composite citizen, individual unknown. This necessarily results in 
public service for the general welfare, and not for any selfish interest, 
the public servant realizing that otherwise he must be recalled, or will 
certainly fail of reelection. 

Because society and government should be based upon a full recog¬ 
nition of the elemental forces controlling human action, I urge the 
reader’s careful attention to my analysis of these forces. I assert that 
either impulse or deduction, followed by conviction, controls all 
human action. If the individual be confronted with the necessity for 
immediate action, then impulse arising from emotion, such as love, 
hatred, anger, sympathy, sentiment, or appetite, is the determining 
force. But when the individual has days, weeks, or months to con¬ 
sider his course, then deduction, followed by conviction, is the deter¬ 
mining force. Without conviction, there will be no action. 

Individual action should be guided by reason, but is frequently 
emotional. Community action, as in an election, must be based upon 
conviction resulting from analysis and deduction. 

I assert that self-interest is the force controlling every future or 
postponed action of the individual—not necessarily always selfish 
interest, for sometimes the individual is satisfied with his participa¬ 
tion in the improved general welfare incident to the action. Gener¬ 
ally, however, the individual’s action, when unrestrained, is governed 
by his own selfish and personal interest. 



4 


INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM, AND RECALL. 


No two people in the world are exactly alike; consequently each 
individual has a different point of view or idea as to what constitutes 
his own particular personal or selfish interest. Where individuals act 
collectively or as a community, as they must under the initiative, 
referendum, and recall, an infinite number of different forces are set 
in motion, most of them selfish, each struggling for supremacy, but 
all different because of the difference in the personal equations of the 
different individuals constituting the community. Because of their 
difference, friction is created—each different selfish interest attacks the 
others because of its difference. No one selfish interest is powerful 
enough to overcome all the others; they must wear each other away 
until general welfare, according to the views of the majority acting, 
is substituted for the individual selfish interest. 

If all the individual units of society were alike, then selfishness 
would dominate not only the individual but the community action 
as well. But so long as no two people are alike, just so long will 
selfishness dominate the individual if permitted to act independ¬ 
ently, while general welfare must control all community action; for 
if the individual can not secure the gratification of liis own selfish 
desire, then he must rest satisfied with the improved general welfare 
in which he, as one of the units of the community, is a proportional 
participant. 

This logic applies to a community or a class. Under the initiative, 
referendum, and recall there can be no class or community action 
against the general welfare of the citizens constituting the zone of 
action. The individual, through realization of the impossibility of 
securing special legislation for himself and against the general welfare 
of the community, soon ceases his efforts for special privilege and 
contents himself with efforts for improved general welfare. Thus 
the individual, class, and community develop along lines of general 
welfare rather than along lines of selfish interest. 

In further refutation of the unwarranted fear of hasty or unwise 
community action, I assert that no individual will ever vote for, or 
willingly assent to a change, unless satisfied that that change will 
directly benefit him individually, or that the action will bring 
improved general welfare to the community, in which event he is satis¬ 
fied with proportional participation incident to that improvement. 
In other words, community action determines the average of indi¬ 
vidual interests, and secures the greatest good for the greatest number, 
which is the desideratum of organized society. 

Hence I again assert that because of the forces controlling all 
human action the people can not under the initiative enact legislation 
against general welfare or in favor of any selfish interest, nor will 
they select any public servant who, in their opinion, will be domi¬ 
nated by any selfish interest. Though I grant they may make a 
mistake in selecting public servants, I assert that they will not make 
the same mistake twice in the same individual; that is, under an 
efficient direct primary law and corrupt practices act, the people will 
not renominate an individual who lias failed to serve faithfully the 
community he represents. 

I have demonstrated that under the initiative and referendum the 
people can not legislate against the general welfare, and by the same 
logic I assert that under the recall the people will never recall a public 
servant, judicial or otherwise, who serves the general welfare. 


INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM, AND RECALL. 


5 


To elucidate the subject, I shall give a few concrete illustrations. 
Suppose that in a city of 25,000 inhabitants where there are 4,000 
voters a private corporation owns the water system and charges 
exorbitant rates for the service. The self-interests of probably 
20,000 of the inhabitants would require municipal ownership of the 
water system as a means of improving the service and reducing the 
cost, but the self-interests of perhaps 5,000 of the inhabitants require 
continuation of private ownership, because these individuals are 
either stockholders in the company, employees of the company, recipi¬ 
ents of business patronage from the company, or political beneficiaries 
of the system of private ownership. These few individual self- 
interests, under the existing system of convention, nomination, and 
legislation through a city council, are able, through control of the 
press and the manipulation of nominations and municipal legislation, 
to prevent or delay the efforts of the vast majority to change the 
system to one of public ownership. 

Under the initiative, which would permit direct legislation on the 
subject, this question could be submitted to a vote of all the qualified 
electors. Applying the principle I have fully stated in the foregoing 
paragraphs, when this question came up for determination by the 
voters there would be conflict between the self-interests of the indi¬ 
viduals, but during the campaign preliminary to the election the 
subject would be discussed and considered in all its bearings. Each 
individual would make his own deductions as to his own self-interest* 
and the general welfare of the community, with the result that 
selfish interest would be worn away and the greatest good for the 
greatest number secured. Unless a majority of the voters were con¬ 
vinced that public ownership would be to their interest, the proposal 
for public ownership would be defeated. 

I hear opponents of popular government asserting that the people 
might be misled and act unwisely on a question of this kind, and I 
reply that they are the best judges of their own self-interest and have 
a right as sovereign citizens to determine the policies of their Govern¬ 
ment. They will, at least, act honestly, which can not always be 
said for city councils influenced by the power of a public-servicy cor¬ 
poration and protected by the silence or active defense of a subsidized 
press. 

At this place in my discussion of the practical operation of popular 
government I deem it appropriate to explain that this article is 
designed primarily as an answer to an article by Representative 
Samuel W. McCall, published in the Atlantic Monthly for October, 
1911. It is my endeavor, however, to make this article complete in 
itself, and I shall refer to Mr. McCall's article only so far as is necessary 
in order to correct a few errors into which he has apparently fallen. 

The failure of Mr. McCall to comprehend the practical operation of 
the initiative and referendum is illustrated by his reference to the 
Columbia River fisheries legislation as a case in which the system 
worked unsatisfactorily. Evidently without knowing he was doing 
so, he cited an unquestionable instance of the elimination of selfish¬ 
ness and the substitution of general welfare. The case referred to 
was the submission of two Columbia River fishery bills to the people 
of Oregon in 1908. The rival fishing interests, the gill-net fishermen 
on the lower river and the fish-wheel operators on the upper river, 
had conducted their work so effectively as to threaten ruin of the 


6 


INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM, AND RECALL. 


industry by destruction of the fish before they could reach the natural 
spawning grounds. Almost every two years the rival fishing interests 
had carried their fight to the State legislature, and the legislature 
failed to enact any adequate legislation for the protection of the 
natural supply of fish. The State was maintaining hatcheries for 
the artificial propagation of salmon, but notwithstanding the main¬ 
tenance of this work the fish-supply was steadily diminishing. 

Believing that they could promote their own selfish interests and 
eliminate their rivals by resort to the initiative, the fish-wheel opera¬ 
tors of the upper river proposed a bill practically prohibiting gill-net 
fishing on the lower river, and the gill-net fishermen proposed a bill 
prohibiting fish-wheel operations on the upper river. These two 
measures, each initiated by selfish interests, were submitted to a vote 
of the people. During the campaign the rival interests presented 
their arguments, not only through the publicity pamphlet, but through 
the newspapers and by circular letters. The people of the State 
gave the matter careful consideration, and, believing that the general 
welfare required that the fish themselves be protected from exter¬ 
mination, they adopted both bills. 

The people having temporarily terminated fishing on the Columbia 
River, the legislature, which had theretofore failed to do its duty, 
responded to the popular will and enacted a law which permits 
fishing within reasonable regulations, but provides opportunity for 
Ihe fish during closed seasons to reach their natural spawning grounds. 
I thank Mr. McCall for calling attention to this instance in which 
the composite citizen, acting under the initiative, eliminated selfish 
interests and substituted general welfare. 

Similar results are accomplished through the referendum. Selfish 
interests are frequently able to influence the individual members of 
a legislature to such an extent as to secure enactment of laws granting 
special privileges. On the other hand, there have been innumerable 
instances in which members of legislatures introduced bills attacking 
the business interests of large corporations, for the purpose of com¬ 
pelling such corporations to pay tor the abandonment or defeat of 
such bills. In the one case, selfish interests were able to buy legis¬ 
lation for their own benefit and against general welfare; while in the 
other case corrupt legislators had power to blackmail corporations. 
Such transactions are impossible where the referendum is in force, 
for the people have power to defeat grants of special privileges against 
general welfare; and if a corporation is unjustly attacked by a 
blackmailing bill, it can refuse to pay tribute and appeal directly to 
the people under the referendum, with full assurance that the people 
will not give their approval to legislation of that character. I 
believe every observer of legislative controversies involving the general 
welfare of State or city will agree that selfish interest frequently 
dominates individual action, whereas if community action had been 
possible, the result would have been advantageous to general welfare. 

The initiative affords any citizen who has evolved a solution of a 
governmental problem an opportunity for demonstration of its 
merits. Under a system of delegated legislation only, his ideas could 
be, and quite likely would be, referred to some committee where 
further action would be prevented through the influence of selfish 
interest. Where the initiative exists, he can present his ideas in the 
definite form of a proposed bill if 8 per cent of the legal voters 


INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM, AND RECALL. 7 

consider it worthy of consideration and sign a petition for its sub¬ 
mission to a popular vote. 

The system encourages every citizen, however humble his position, 
to study the problems of government, city and State, and to submit 
whatever solution he may evolve for the consideration and approval 
of others. The study of the measures and arguments printed in the 
publicity pamphlet is of immense educational value. The system 
not only encourages the development of each individual, but tends 
to elevate the entire electorate to the plane of those who are most 
advanced. How different from the system so generally in force, 
which tends to discourage and suppress the individual. 

Speaking of the initiative and referendum, Mr. McCall says that, 
“In effect, they propose the substitution of direct for representative 
government, the establishment of the direct action of the people, not 
merely in selecting their agents, but in framing and executing their 
laws.” And again, “It is now proposed to abandon the discovery of 
modern times” (government by the people, acting not in person, but 
by representatives chosen by themselves). 

In view of the clear declaration of our initiative and referendum 
amendment, that “the legislative authority of the State shall be 
vested in a legislative assembly, but the people reserve to themselves 
power to propose laws and amendments to the Constitution, and to 
enact or reject the same at the polls,” my inclination at first was to 
believe that the writer did not intend to convey the idea that repre¬ 
sentative government had been “abandoned” and direct government 
“substituted” therefor; but this liberal construction of his language 
became impossible when I read the following in the same connection: 

Is it for the interest of the individual members of our society to have the great mass 
of us pass upon the intricate details of legislation, to execute our laws, and to administer 
justice between man and man? That I believe to be in substance the question raised 
by the initiative, the referendum, and the recall, as they are now practically applied 
in at least one of the States of the Union, the example of which is held up as a model 
to the other States. 

I deny unequivocally that in effect or in substance we in Oregon 
have abandoned representative government, or that the mass of the 
people pass upon the intricate details of legislation, execute the laws, 
or administer justice between man and man. Let us consider the 
facts. At the last general election the people of Oregon voted upon 
32 measures. Of these measures, 11 were constitutional amendments, 
of which 4 were adopted and 7 rejected. Of the 21 bills submitted 
to the people, only 5 were enacted and 16 rejected. The result of the 
direct vote was 9 measures adopted. The Oregon Legislature held 
a 40-day session last January, considered 725 bills and 235 resolu¬ 
tions or memorials. Two hundred and seventy-five of the bills were 
enacted. Evidently the extent of substitution of direct legislation 
is indicated by the ratio of 9 to 275. This is not exactly “abandon¬ 
ment” of the representative system. Of the relative merits of the 
two systems I shall say more later, but leave that subject for the 
present in order to continue the denial of statements quoted above. 

I deny that the people of Oregon have executed the laws except 
through their duly chosen public servants. If the statement quoted 
is intended to apply to the recall, I reply by saying that there has 
been no exercise of the recall against any State, district, or county 
officer, though there was talk of recalling a circuit judge. I have no 
doubt that administrative officers have been influenced to some 


8 


INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM, AND RECALL. 


extent by the fact that they are subject to recall. That is one purpose 
of the recall. Experience with public officers from one ocean to the 
other justifies the belief that some of them will be influenced by the 
wishes of the men to whom they owe their positions and to whom 
they are accountable at the end of their terms. Under the former 
system of machine dominations we learned that public officers were 
frequently influenced by the wishes of the political bosses, regardless 
of the interests and wishes of the people. If they were influenced 
by the desires of men who put them into office under the old system, 
quite likely they are influenced by the wishes of the composite citizen, 
who gives them their positions under the new. The difference is that 
individual, selfish interest wielded the influence under the old system, 
while under the new system the public officer knows that the people 
as a whole desire only a square deal and seek no special privileges. 

I deny that the mass of the people have been called upon to admin¬ 
ister justice between man and man. Our courts have proceeded with 
their work as quietly and as deliberately as ever, though possibly 
with less delay. It would be impossible for the people of Oregon to 
administer justice between man and man in any case, for though 
they have the power to recall a judge they have no power to change 
the decision he has rendered. 

Mr. McCall says that “the prevailing fault of legislative bodies is 
political cowardice,” and that “the mania of the times is too much 
legislation and the tendency to regulate everybody and everything by 
artificial enactment.” 

Conclusive evidence that has been uncovered in numerous legisla¬ 
tive investigations satisfies the people of the country that venality 
as well as cowardice is one of the faults of legislators. Neither venal¬ 
ity nor cowardice can be charged against the voters of a Common¬ 
wealth except in those instances in which public affairs are so domi¬ 
nated bjr political bosses that the voter has no opportunity of exer¬ 
cising the right of selection of candidates. 

As I have explained on previous occasions, the wholesale bartering 
of votes in Adams County, Ohio, and Danville, Ill., may be accounted 
for by the fact that for years the voters had been accustomed to mark 
their ballots for one of two candidates, each chosen for them b}^ the 
operators of the political machine. Having learned by experience that 
their votes were ineffective to overcome public evils, they decided 
that they might as well profit by the few dollars that they could secure 
for their votes, especially since the character of the public service 
would not be changed thereby. Whenever relieved from the domi¬ 
nation of political machines and given opportunity to express an effec¬ 
tive choice, the voters of any State will be guilty of neither venality 
nor cowardice, but will go to the polls and honestly express their opin¬ 
ions upon the questions ' submitted and upon their preference as 
between candidates. 

As I have already shown, the last Oregon Legislature enacted 275 
laws, while the people under the initiative and referendum adopted 
9 measures. If too much legislation constitutes a mania, as Mr. 
McCall says, then the evil must be charged to legislatures and not to 
the system of direct legislation. 

On the whole, laws enacted by the people are more carefully pre¬ 
pared, more widely discussed, and more thoroughly considered than 
are the acts of a legislature'. A bill or proposed constitutional amend- 


INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM, AND RECALL. 9 

Blent submitted under the initiative must be filed with the secretary 
of state not less than four months before the election. Prior to that 
time the measure secures publicity through the fact that it must be 
circulated for the signatures of 8 per cent of the voters. After the 
bills have been filed the promoters and opponents thereof may file 
arguments for or against. It is made the duty of the secretary of 
state to have a full copy of the title and text of each measure, together 
with the arguments for and against, printed in a pamphlet, a copy of 
which must be mailed to every registered voter not less than 55 days 
prior to election. The title of a bill appears in the publicity pamphlet 
exactly as it will appear upon the ballot. In this way the voter 
secures the best possible information regarding the provisions of the 
bills, their merits or defects, and the reason why they should or should 
not be enacted. 

No such opportunity for the study of measures is afforded members 
of a legislature. The Oregon Legislature, for instance, is in session 
only 40 days and members secure printed copies of the bills introduced 
no sooner than the end of the first week. Very frequently important 
bills are introduced about the middle of the session and the members 
have copies of these before them for not more than 20 days. Amend¬ 
ments are frequent, and sometimes these are made as late as the day 
on which the bill is passed, so that legislators frequently vote upon 
bills without knowing their real effect. 

We had a conclusive demonstration of tlus in the Oregon Legisla¬ 
ture of 1903, when the legislature repealed a statute which allowed 
every householder a tax exemption of household goods to the value 
of $300. After the legislature adjourned members were astonished 
to learn that they had repealed such a law, and, at a special session, 
called within a year, this statute was reenacted by an overwhelming 
vote. Not even Mr. McCall will contend that legislation such as this 
could be ignorantly passed under the initiative and referendum. Four 
months of discussion will, beyond peradventure, disclose any serious 
fault or defect in any proposed statute submitted under the initiative. 

Some honest opponents of direct legislation base their opposition 
partly on the fact that a measure submitted under the initiative is 
not susceptible of amendment after it has been filed in the office of the 
secretary of state. Instead of being cause for criticism, this is one of 
the strongest reasons for commendation, for we have learned by 
experience that one of the most common methods by which vicious 
legislation is secured is to introduce a harmless or a beneficial bill and 
let it secure a favorable report from a legislative committee, but with 
a slight amendment inserted therein which entirely changes its charac¬ 
ter or effect in some important particular and thereby serves some 
selfish interest. When it is known that a bill must be enacted or re¬ 
jected exactly as drawn, the framers of the measure will spend weeks 
and months in studying the subject and writing the bill in order to have 
it free from unsatisfactory features. 

In actual practice in Oregon almost every proposed bill is submitted 
to a considerable number of men for criticism and suggestions before 
its final form is determined upon. The original draft undergoes many 
amendments, and these are more carefully considered than would be 
the case if the bill were before a legislature. Knowing that the bill 
will be subjected to the closest scrutiny of all the people for four 
months, the framers of the bill desiring its passage naturally endeavor 


10 INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM, AND RECALL. 

to remove every reasonable objection, to make all its provisions per¬ 
fectly clear, and especially to remove every indication of bad faith. A 
bill to which there are many serious objections would stand little 
chance of adoption by a popular vote. When thus drawn and sub¬ 
mitted, a bill is in the best possible form, and there is no possibility 
of its being made the instrument for the enactment of what are com¬ 
monly called “jokers.” 

I do not contend that a bill thus drawn will be perfect, for no human 
work is perfect, but I do assert that it will be much better drawn than 
the great majority of bills presented to a legislature; and, if adopted, 
it will be an improvement upon legislation theretofore in force on 
the same subject. The people of a State will never vote against 
their own interests, hence they will never vote to adopt a law unless 
it proposes a change for the improvement of the general welfare. 
Previous to the last election, each voter had 55 days in which to 
consider 32 measures, which, with the arguments for and against, 
were laid before him in convenient printed form. This gave him an 
average of nearly two days for the consideration of each measure. 
Assuming that many of the bills introduced in one house never appear 
in the other, each member of the Oregon Legislature was called upon 
to consider about 500 bills in 40 days, or over 12 each day, besides 
being compelled to consider many resolutions, motions, and questions 
of a political character. I assert that the individual voters of the 
State, in the quiet of their own homes in the evening, could better 
consider and decide upon an average of one bill in two days than the 
members of the legislature, amid the hurry and strife and personal 
feeling incident to a legislative session, could consider and decide 
upon an average of 12 bills a day. 

It is frequently asserted that the voter in Oregon is required to 
pass upon 32 measures in the few minutes he occupies the booth on 
election day. Such is not the case. He has several weeks in which 
to determine how he will vote, and merely takes a few minutes in 
which to mark his ballot. 

In his discussion of the recall, particularly as applied to judges, 
Mr. McCall has reiterated a prevailing error as to the practical opera¬ 
tion of that feature of popular government. Evidently he has been 
misled by accepting as true certain statements contained in the 
President’s veto message of the Arizona statehood bill. He says, 
for instance, that, when the recall is invoked, the man whom the 
people have elected to an office is permitted either to resign in five 
days or to defend himself in 200 words upon proceedings to throw 
him out in disgrace. This statement is incorrect in two particulars. 
He may neither resign nor defend himself, but may quietly continue 
in office until his successor has been elected. He has three alterna¬ 
tives: Either to resign, to stand for reelection, or to continue in 
office and await passively the outcome of the recall proceedings. If 
he chooses to defend himself, he is not limited to a defense of 200 
words. The 200-word limit is merely upon the length of statement 
he may make to be printed upon the official ballot. This is merely 
a summary of his defense. He is at liberty to make such other defense 
before the people as he may desire. 

Moreover the Arizona constitution, to which Mr. McCall refers, 
requires that the legislature shall provide for the payment of the 
campaign expenses of any officer attacked under the recall. The 


INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM, AND RECALL. 


11 


man or men who attack an officer under the recall must pay the 
expenses of their campaign. The man in office has not only the advan¬ 
tage of his official record, the prestige of his office, the desire of the 
American voter to give every incumbent of an office a square deal, 
but he has the further very material advantage of payment of his 
campaign expenses out of the public treasury. Any officer who is 
not able to make out a case in his own defense with all these advan¬ 
tages is very probably a fit subject for recall proceedings. 

Mr. McCall further states that it would be a matter of no difficulty 
for the defeated candidate to initiate a recall and practically have 
the election over again. I challenge the citation of any instance in 
which experience has demonstrated that this criticism is justified. 
Experience in politics everywhere has demonstrated that the people 
admire a “good loser.” They have contempt for the man who, after 
he has been beaten in a fair fight, refuses to quit. 

The recall amendment provides that a recall petition shall not be 
circulated against any officer until he has actually held his office six 
months, except that a petition for recall of a member of the legis¬ 
lature may be filed five days after the legislature meets. Since a 
successful candidate takes office two months after election, and it 
would ordinarily require a month to circulate a recall petition, it is 
plain that there would be at least nine months for the subsidence of 
any personal feeling engendered during a campaign. Obviously a 
recall as to members of the legislature must be operative while the 
legislature is in session, to be effective. 

Thus assured of an opportunity to demonstrate the character of 
service he will render, no public servant need fear recall proceedings 
growing out of the campaign for his election, unless his election was 
secured by dishonest means. Of course, in such a case, a recall might 
be filed immediately after the expiration of the six months. This 
would be brought, not so much by the defeated candidate or his 
friends, as by citizens in general, whose right it is to have every elec¬ 
tion conducted fairly and honestly. 

The assumption that a recall proceeding is an imposition upon a 
public officer is not founded on good reason. An individual has no 
personal right to public office, though some few, who, under delegated 
government, have bought their offices, may think they have. The 
office belongs to the people, and they are entitled to have it filled by 
whomsoever they please. Every employer in private life reserves 
the right to discharge his employee whenever the service rendered 
is unsatisfactory. 

The same prmciple should apply to the electorate in the employ¬ 
ment of a public servant. In fact, this right would be a matter of 
understanding and contract where a citizen seeks and accepts a pub¬ 
lic office with the knowledge that the recall is one of the laws of his 
State. 

Mr. McCall asserts that where the recall is in force, “the judge, in 
order to feel secure in his office, would have to consult the popular 
omens rather than the sources of the law.” Upon the same reasoning 
where the convention system exists with a boss in control the judge,. 
in order to feel secure in his office, would consult the wishes of the boss 
rather than the sources of the law. There is this difference in favor 
of the influence of the recall—popular influence would be exerted in 
behalf of the welfare of the majority, whereas the influence of the 


12 


INITIATIVE) REFERENDUM, AND RECALL. 


political boss is exerted in behalf of the interests of a very small 
minority, which is generally himself or a campaign contributor. 

Some people express the fear that the rights of a minority will be 
disregarded by the tyranny of the majority. They are really most 
concerned for the perpetuation of special and unjust privileges for 
the small minority. Neither election nor appointment to a legisla¬ 
tive, executive, or judicial office carries coincident personal or official 
infallibility. 

There is very little weight to argument based upon allusion to the 
democracy of Athens, or to the experience of other ancient nations 
which made more or less progress toward a popular form of govern¬ 
ment. In the last 2,000 years conditions have greatly changed. 
Electricity and steam, the telegraph, telephone, railroad, and steam¬ 
boat have established media of instantaneous intercommunication of 
ideas and rapid cooperation of action in the individual units of society. 

In less than a decade the people of Oregon have voted upon 64 
measures. Surely, if the initiative and referendum is a destructive 
system, as its enemies allege, there would be abundant evidence 
thereof in the recent history of that State; and it should not be 
difficult for any citizen to produce conclusive and absolutely con¬ 
vincing evidence to that effect. No one has done so or can do so. 

Both reason and experience demonstrate the practicability and 
importance of the initiative and referendum. My analysis of the 
forces controlling all human action, as set forth in the earty para¬ 
graphs of this article, proves the impossibility of a community voting 
against the general welfare. Any person interested in the subject 
will observe by a study of results in Oregon that this has been demon¬ 
strated in that State. 


A list of the measures submitted to the people of Oregon in the last four elections. 


Yes. 


No. 


1904. 


Direct primary law with direct selection of United States Senator 1 
Local-option liquor law 1 ..... 


56,205 16,3,54 

43,316 40,198 


1906. 


Omnibus appropriation bill, State institutions 2 . 

Equal-suffrage constitutional amendment 1 .. 

Local-option bill proposed by liquor people 1 . 

Bill for purchase by State of Barlow toll road 1 . 

Amendment requiring referendum on any act calling constitutional convention L 

Amendment giving cities sole power to amend their charters 1 . 

Legislature authorized to fix pay of State printer 1 . 

Initiative and referendum to apply to all local, special, and municipal laws 1 _ 

Bill prohibiting free passes on railroads 1 ... 

Gross-earnings tax on sleeping, refrigerator, and oil car companies 1 . 

Gross-earnings tax on express, telephone, and telegraph companies 1 . 

1908. 

Amendment increasing pay of legislators from $120 to $400 per session 3 . 

4mendment permitting location of State institutions at places other than the 

capital 3 . 

Amendment reorganizing system of courts and increasing supreme judges from 

tjhree to five 3 . 

Amendment changing general election from June to November 3 ...... A!” 

Bill giving sheriffs control of county prisoners 2 . 

Railroads required to give public officials free passes 2 .' ’.'' 

Bill appropriating $100,000 for armories 2 .' 

1 Submitted under the initiative. 

2 Submitted under the referendum upon legislative act. 

3 Submitted to the people by the legislature 


43,918 
36, 902 
35,297 
31,525 
47,661 
52,567 
63, 749 
47,678 
57,281 
69, 635 
70,872 


19,691 


41,971 

30,243 
65,728 
60,443 
28,856 
33,507 


26,758 
47,075 
45,144 
44,527 
18,751 
19,852 
9,571 
16,735 
16, 779 
6,441 
6,360 


68,892 
40,868 


50,591 
18,590 
30,033 
59,406 
54,848 































INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM, AND RECALL. 13 

A list oj the measures submitted to the people of Oregon in the last four elections —Continued. 


Yes. 


No. 


1908. 


Bill increasing fixed appropriation for State.university from $47,500 to $125,000 

annually 1 ...». 

Equal-suffrage amendment . 

Fishery bill proposed by fish-wheel operators . 

Fishery bill proposed by gill-net operators . 

Amendment giving cities control of liquor selling, pool rooms, theaters, etc.., 

subject to local-option law 2 . 

Modified form of single-tax amendment 2 . 

Recall power on public officials 2 . 

Bill instructing legislators to vote for people’s choice for United States Senators 2 . 

Amendment authorizing proportional-representation law 2 . 

Corrupt-practices act governing elections 2 . 

Amendment requiring indictment to be by grand jury 2 . 

Bill creating Hood River County 2 . i 


44,115 
36, 858 
46,582 
56,130 

39,442 
32,066 
58,381 
69,668 
48,868 
54,042 
52,214 
43,948 


1910. 


Amendment permitting female taxpayers to vote 2 . 

Act establishing branch insane asylum in eastern Oregon 3 . 

Act calling convention to revise State constitution 3 . 

Amendment providing separate district for election of each State senator and 

representative 3 ... 

Amendment repealing requirement that all taxes shall'be equal and uniform 3 .. 
Amendment permitting organized districts to vote bonds for construction of rail¬ 
roads by such districts 3 . 

Amendment authorizing collection of State and county taxes on separate classes 

of property 3 .1. 

Act requiring Baker County to pay $1,000 a year to circuit judge in addition to 

hi State salary 1 . 

Bill creating Nesmith County from parts of Lane and Douglas 2 . 

Bill to establish a State normal school at Monmouth 2 . 

Bill creating Otis County from parts of Harney, Malheur, and Grant 2 . 

Bill annexing part of Clackamas County to Multnomah 2 . 

Bill creating Williams County from parts of Lane and Douglas 2 . 

Amendment permitting people of each county to regulate taxation for county 

purposes and abolishing poll taxes 2 . 

Amendment giving cities and towns exclusive power to regulate liquor traffic 

within their limits 2 . 

Bill for protection of laborers in hazardous employment, fixing employers’ lia¬ 
bility, etc. 2 . 

Bill creating Orchard County from part of Umatilla 2 . 

Bill creating Clark County from part of Grant 2 . 

Bill to establish State normal school at Weston 2 . 

Bill to annex part of Washington County to Multnomah 2 . 

Bill to establish State normal school at Ashland 2 . 

Amendment prohibiting liquor traffic 2 . 

Bill prohibiting sale of liquor, providing for search for liquors, and regulating 

shipments of same 2 . 

Bill creating board to draft employers’ liability law for submission to legislature 2 . 

Bill prohibiting taking of fish in Rogue River except with hook and line 2 . 

Bill creating Deschutes County out of part of Crook 2 .. 

Bill for general law under which new counties may be created or boundaries j 

changed 2 ...I 

Amendment permitting counties to vote bonds for permanent road improve¬ 
ment 2 . 

Bill permitting voters in direct primaries to express choice for President and 
Vice President, to select delegates to national conventions, and nominate 

candidates for presidential electors 2 . 

Bill creating board of people’s inspectors of government, providing for reports 
of board in Official State Gazette to be mailed to all registered voters bi¬ 
monthly 2 . 

Amendment extending initiative and referendum, making terms of members of 
legislature 6 years, increasing salaries, requiring proportional representation 
in legislature, election of speaker of house and president of senate outside of 

members, etc. 2 ... 

Amendment permitting three-fourths verdict in civil cases 2 . 


35,270 
50,134 
23,143 


24,000 
37,619 

32,841 

31,629 

13,161 
22,866 
50,191 
17,426 
16,250 
14,508 


44,171 


53,321 


56,258 
15,664 
15,613 
40,898 
14,047 
38, 473 
43, 540 


42,651 
32,224 
49, 712 
17,592 

37,129 

51,275 


43,353 


29,955 


37,031 
44,538 


40,535 
58,670 
40,720 
30,280 

52,346 
60,871 
31,002 
21,162 
34,128 
31,301 
28, 487 
26,778 


59,065 
41,504 
59,974 

54,252 
40,172 

46,070 

41,692 


71,503 
60,951 
40,044 
62,016 
69,002 
64,090 

42,127 

50,779 

33,943 
62,712 
61,704 
46,201 
68,221 
48,655 
61,221 

63,564 
51,719 
33,397 
60,486 

42,327 

32,906 


41,624 


52,538 


44.366 
39,399 


1 Submitted under the referendum upon legislative act. 

2 Submitted under the initiative. 

3 Submitted to the people by the legislature. 



























































I, 


*' 


t - 


V \ 


* 

t 

» • 

. « 


■' & - 
‘ - 




• - 

. f ' - 


t ■ A 






.V * 

7 


<• :> 


- * • 




i 


• • 

,r .v 

>• •: 
i . 


: * 


. * 










‘ ■ 




»• • 
























































• 
































































. 






















■ • 














C 


• -1 


: -< 







1 



















































































































